Public Knowledge is raising the alarm about AT&T's decision to exempt traffic generated by AT&T's wireless microcells from the data caps imposed on U-Verse broadband customers. PK's Michael Weinberg says that AT&T is "egregiously abusing data caps to give its own services advantages over competitors."

A microcell is like a miniature cell phone tower that a user attaches to a home broadband connection to improve wireless reception. Like other mobile providers, AT&T offers microcells that improve wireless reception by routing phone traffic over the customer's home Internet connection. If a customer acquires a microcell from Sprint or Verizon and connects it to the AT&T U-Verse broadband connection in her home, any traffic generated by the device will count against the data caps that AT&T imposes on U-Verse customers.

But a reader at Stop the Cap noticed that the same principle does not apply if a U-Verse customer is also an AT&T mobile customer. "Wireless traffic from your AT&T 3G MicroCell does not count toward your monthly home broadband plan," AT&T says in the U-Verse FAQ on broadband usage. Users must register with AT&T so that their wireless and U-Verse accounts can be linked together.

In a blog post, Weinberg draws a parallel to the controversy over Comcast's policy that traffic generated by its XBox video streaming app would not count against a customer's broadband data cap. Public Knowledge asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Comcast's policy and is still waiting for a formal ruling on the matter. The Justice Department has also been investigating whether Comcast and other cable incumbents have used such tactics to harm competition in the fledgling online video marketplace.

"There is one easy-to-understand concern about data caps that everyone should be able to agree on: ISPs should not be able to use data caps anticompetitively," Weinberg argues. "The company that connects you to the Internet should not be able to abuse its control of that connection in order to make its unrelated services more attractive."

It might make more sense for AT&T to take the opposite approach: count microcell traffic normally on the broadband side but don't count microcell traffic against any data cap that may exist on the user's cell phone. This would likely address PK's network neutrality concerns, since all microcells would enjoy equal treatment. And some customers have expressed outrage that microcell data counts against a customer's wireless cap given that the data is flowing through the customer's own wireless connection rather than AT&T's cell towers.

I have trouble getting upset about this specific instance. Those microcells are offered specifically by AT&T to reduce load on their towers, and increase coverage in areas those towers can't effectively cover.

Due to the fact they're designed to reduce load, I don't really see this as the end of the world. Now the question I have is, does the data that comes across the microcell count against the customer's wireless data cap? If it does still, then this is definitely a tempest in a teapot, as the accounting for bandwidth is happening somewhere in AT&T, they're simply avoiding double-billing.

Any "outrage" over this is absurd. Of *course* AT&T wants to "give its own services advantages over competitors". To do any less would be a disservice to themselves and to their shareholders. Data caps are, by and large, a fabrication of the ISPs, and as such, the ISPs can modify them or provide exemptions for them as they see fit. To propose that "ISPs should not be able to use data caps anticompetitively" is like saying that a restaraunt shouldn't be able to serve larger portions than another restaraunt, since that might make them outsell a competitor.

This DOES serve to make AT&T internet service more appealing to someone who uses their phone service, and vice versa, but isn't that kind of the point?

No, this is ridiculous. We're talking about geographic monopolies. They don't get to freely compete the same way as other industries. This is why the principle of Network Neutrality is so important. Doing things like de-emphasizing Netflix streaming in preference of its own paid movie service is [i]a bad thing[/b]. The argument being, I paid for that bandwidth, and you better let me use it as I like.

It's a reasonable argument to make, especially when like you say, those caps are largely arbitrary anyway.

We need to start regulating ISP's, it's as simple as that. We need to break up the ATT and Comcast's and separate the content from the carrier. It's so fucking simple it's a no brainer. Sorry, if any conservative/corporate apologist has a problem with that or say it can't be done obviously wasn't around when their patron saint Reagan broke up Ma Bell, and that was back in the days of no internet in the 80's.

Everyone knows the reason for the datacaps is to stop streaming from competition. You know it, everyone knows it. There is no "congestion", that's a blatant fucking lie with no real evidence to back it up. Data is not a finite resource, our pipes are not the pipes of the 1990's, ISP's are selling 50 mb/s speeds, yet they use the totally corpspeak bullshit :congestion: as an excuse for datacaps? Only some mentally deficient congressman from bumfuck district in the middle of the country where there isn't broadband would buy that argument. Everyone else in the real world knows it's total farce. I live smack dab in the middle of Atlanta, I use my internet constantly, streaming amazon/netflix all of the time, and never experience this fabled :congestion: nor has any of my neighbors.

I have trouble getting upset about this specific instance. Those microcells are offered specifically by AT&T to reduce load on their towers, and increase coverage in areas those towers can't effectively cover.

Due to the fact they're designed to reduce load, I don't really see this as the end of the world. Now the question I have is, does the data that comes across the microcell count against the customer's wireless data cap? If it does still, then this is definitely a tempest in a teapot, as the accounting for bandwidth is happening somewhere in AT&T, they're simply avoiding double-billing.

I haven't looked at my paperwork in a while, but when we were setting up our AT&T microcell, I seem to recall a line that said any data that was passed over the 3G connection counts against our wireless cap.

I'm finding a hard time seeing what is inherently wrong with this. I'm not AT&T's biggest fan, but I think everyone should refrain from getting on the hate-wagon as soon as "AT&T"and "net neutrality" are mentioned in the same sentence.

From what I understand microcells are sold to consumers in the first place in certain areas where cell reception is weak due to radio signals not being able to penetrate some thick walls. AT&T sells the customer the micro cell to circumvent this eventuality.

I can't seriously expect, as a customer or third party, to have AT&T count the data consumption of the microcell THEY SOLD ME because THEIR signal doesn't reach my house, against my data caps.

Similarly I can't expect them to allow these same "privileges" to someone who for whatever reason decides against buying AT&T's micro cell and instead goes with a competitor.

No, this is ridiculous. We're talking about geographic monopolies. They don't get to freely compete the same way as other industries. This is why the principle of Network Neutrality is so important. Doing things like de-emphasizing Netflix streaming in preference of its own paid movie service is [i]a bad thing[/b]. The argument being, I paid for that bandwidth, and you better let me use it as I like.

It's a reasonable argument to make, especially when like you say, those caps are largely arbitrary anyway.

I'll admit that I hadn't thought about it in a geographic sense. Living in the city, I've got plenty of options and alternatives, so my perspective may be a little skewed. Still, the decision to provide free femtocell bandwidth doesn't /harm/ the customers who choose not to use their mobile phone service. (full disclosure: I've got AT&T as an ISP and Sprint as a mobile service provider, and I won't be switching any time soon, free bandwidth or not.) Providing synchronicity between one's products/services makes sense, however, since it makes your service more appealing.

I do agree that limiting service in an anticompetitive manner (i.e., de-emphasizing Netflix streaming) is harmful to a fair market, and can be seen as a dishonest business practice. There is nothing wrong or dishonest about providing greater benefits to people who pay you more money and who buy more of your services. I do concede that providing the free bandwidth may cause AT&T to perform much better in areas where there are limited Internet/Telco provider choices, but again, doing better than your competitors == success.

It's pretty ridiculous that data over the microcell is counted against your cellular data cap, that being said, I have U-verse Internet and here in Nevada there is no data cap on it. I realize that may not be the case everywhere in the country but I just wanted to point out that not all Uverse customers have caps on their account.

You have a cap you just don't know about it, and it's a soft cap not a hard one (they won't bill you / cut you off if you exceed it) however if you are consistently over it you will get a call / letter from them.

We need to break up the ATT and Comcast's and separate the content from the carrier. It's so fucking simple it's a no brainer. Sorry, if any conservative/corporate apologist has a problem with that or say it can't be done obviously wasn't around when their patron saint Reagan broke up Ma Bell, and that was back in the days of no internet in the 80's.

Breaking up the companies into smaller bits doesn't help anybody. It doesn't matter if my local telco is a tiny company with a funny name, they're still a local monopoly, and have carte blanche to do anything they want.

The free-market solution is to have multiple telcos in the same geographic area, competing with each other. But this generally isn't economical at all, since telcos are a natural monopoly. Cable Cos got in there only because they were built-out long ago, when telcos couldn't provide TV service over their lines, but technology has completely changed that.

The socialist solution is to have a municipality-run telco, which just lays down fiber, and lets any and all service providers tap into their fiber lines to your home, for a low and non-discriminatory price, so your telco and cableco are just another service provider, and anybody can compete against them without needing huge investment.

The technological solution is to just wait for wireless technology to catch up, so that ad-hoc peer-to-peer wifi mesh networks provide fast internet service to everyone. But even before that, as the price on cellular technology decreases, cellcos may be able to improve their pricing to the point that they can provide speeds faster than your wired ISPs, with an inexpensive picocell in the middle of your neighborhood, without the need to run wires to every house like the telco and cableco.

Feel free to select the utopian or dystopian future you advocate, from the above options.

Compel AT&T to actually offer the services they advertise before complaining about anti-competitive issues with their services please.

I get advert/offer after advert/offer for U-Verse in my fairly new, completely wired-for/capable-of subdivision (this comes directly from the tech that hooked up my house, all that needs to be changed is the cards in the box feeding my line) and yet all AT&T is willing to sell me is slow, overpriced ADSL.

I haven't looked at my paperwork in a while, but when we were setting up our AT&T microcell, I seem to recall a line that said any data that was passed over the 3G connection counts against our wireless cap.

ATT's example IMO is legit. If a friend comes over with an ATT phone, it piggybacks the microcell, it still associates the traffic with the friend that came over.

Comcasts, OTOH warrants some control. The Microcell is essentially an extension of their network access. An additional network connection point. Totally different comparison between the companies.

I don't get the problem here. AT&T sells you a microcell, which transfers load from their expensive per gig (for them) cell network to their (inexpensive for them) wired network, and as a thank you doesn't charge you for the data on your wired network. As a microcell for a competitor doesn't reduce the load on AT&T's network, they do not provide the same benefit to users of microcells for other networks. And people are upset? AT&T also provides discounts for cell phone accessories for people who have cell service through them. Should people be upset about that as well? Comcast provides a package discount if you get phone, internet, and television service through them. Should people be upset? Gmail works better if you use Google+ to store your contacts than if you use Exchange. Should people be upset about that, too? What about volume discounts on commodities? A seller will charge me less per unit if I buy 10x units from him than two individual sellers will if I buy 5x units from each. Where's the outrage? In general, the more business you do with one company, you get to enjoy some combination of lower costs or better integration between services. This is normally considered uncontroversial and/or a natural consequence of reality.

There are a large number of reasons why you do not get offered U-Verse. The VRAD could be new enough they are not provisioning users yet, you may be too far away, and a whole bunch of other reasons. Tech's can be wrong, and it's not just "changing the card" that your house is wired to, it's disconnecting your house from the ASDL network at a cross box and connecting it to a VDSL2 DSLAM. Which is why you can't get POTS + U-Verse, at least not on the same pair.

It is clear that data obtained over the AT&T wireless network should be counted against data caps on that network, and data obtained through a link to your high-speed landline connection instead should not be, no matter who it comes from.

That should just have been mandated by the FCC at the very beginning when the rules under which cellular telephone companies could offer data services were written.

There are a large number of reasons why you do not get offered U-Verse. The VRAD could be new enough they are not provisioning users yet, you may be too far away, and a whole bunch of other reasons. Tech's can be wrong, and it's not just "changing the card" that your house is wired to, it's disconnecting your house from the ASDL network at a cross box and connecting it to a VDSL2 DSLAM. Which is why you can't get POTS + U-Verse, at least not on the same pair.

Actually, you can get POTS and U-Verse on the same pair. The signals from the VRAD and the CO can be combined at the cross box and then split via a VDSL/POTS splitter inside the DMARC. I agree with your overall point to the original commenter, though. I am a wireline technician for AT&T, and I would be the first to tell you not to take anything a technician tells you about service availability (or the reason for being unavailable) in your area as gospel truth. We technicians are by design kept in the dark on those types of decisions and usually don't know a whole lot more than the average informed Ars reader

I haven't looked at my paperwork in a while, but when we were setting up our AT&T microcell, I seem to recall a line that said any data that was passed over the 3G connection counts against our wireless cap.

ATT's example IMO is legit. If a friend comes over with an ATT phone, it piggybacks the microcell, it still associates the traffic with the friend that came over.

Actually, if a friend came over to my house and they had ATT service, they'd still have to climb onto the roof of the tractor shed to get cell service unless I specifically add them to the microcell.

We need to break up the ATT and Comcast's and separate the content from the carrier. It's so fucking simple it's a no brainer. Sorry, if any conservative/corporate apologist has a problem with that or say it can't be done obviously wasn't around when their patron saint Reagan broke up Ma Bell, and that was back in the days of no internet in the 80's.

Breaking up the companies into smaller bits doesn't help anybody. It doesn't matter if my local telco is a tiny company with a funny name, they're still a local monopoly, and have carte blanche to do anything they want.

The free-market solution is to have multiple telcos in the same geographic area, competing with each other. But this generally isn't economical at all, since telcos are a natural monopoly. Cable Cos got in there only because they were built-out long ago, when telcos couldn't provide TV service over their lines, but technology has completely changed that.

The socialist solution is to have a municipality-run telco, which just lays down fiber, and lets any and all service providers tap into their fiber lines to your home, for a low and non-discriminatory price, so your telco and cableco are just another service provider, and anybody can compete against them without needing huge investment.

The technological solution is to just wait for wireless technology to catch up, so that ad-hoc peer-to-peer wifi mesh networks provide fast internet service to everyone. But even before that, as the price on cellular technology decreases, cellcos may be able to improve their pricing to the point that they can provide speeds faster than your wired ISPs, with an inexpensive picocell in the middle of your neighborhood, without the need to run wires to every house like the telco and cableco.

Feel free to select the utopian or dystopian future you advocate, from the above options.

The simplest solution is the one the telcos have been tripping over themselves trying to dodge: common carrier status. Declare all telecommunication infrastructure under common carrier status and require that they must allow competitors to lease their infrastructure on RAND terms. It allows for competition to spring up in the monopoly zones w/o requiring nationalized infrastructure.

If I could restrict the use of the microcell to the phones I own, then I wouldn't mind them counting against my caps, but that is not possible, so it's not a whole lot different than opening up your home wi-fi to everyone. Yeah, I'm not paying for that, are you?

This DOES serve to make AT&T internet service more appealing to someone who uses their phone service, and vice versa, but isn't that kind of the point?

Yes it does serve to make AT&T and their services more appealing. That isn't the inherent problem with this, and is one that seems to be lost on many commenters.

Now this isn't a perfect analogy as the Internet isn't considered a public utility such as water or power (and while that may not change any time soon, at the rate things are going that can not last forever), but consider this:

You get electricity from PG&E. You can purchase and use any number of things and devices that use that energy from various manufacturers and you pay per kilowatt hour. However, if you are using a PG&E branded lightbulb or computer, you pay less (or not at all). This will inevitably lead to the demise of the competition as people begin to realize the savings. However, it does not all happen at once.

Now, with Internet the way it is in much of America, people typically have two choices (and quite often only one): a DSL and a broadband provider (and quite possibly more than one provider of each in larger cities). Nearly all, as of the past several years as more and more people begin to rely on the service for their livelihoods, have data caps. Comcast instituted one at 250GB not too long ago, but *suspended* it in placement of a temporary 300GB cap.

Now, consider this: Comcast and NBC merged. Comcast is *the* largest residential ISP and *the* largest TV provider (there's some "multi-something provider" name for it) in the US.

If Comcast/NBC began offering all of their content online in HD for anyone, but didn't apply their content to their Internet cap, slowly services would become more favored over other digital content, and their Internet service would be favored over others for its benefit.

Now, whether or not one can understand their business dealings (in which case every stake/stockholder would love it), such dealings are pretty scummy. Scum-level notwithstanding, things like this absolutely should be scrutinized because of the potential long-term harm it can cause to the market and to competition. Providing better content and products should are reason enough to dominate the market, but to *control* the market with business practices that physically prevent or deny competition from having a chance is monopolistic.

If AT&T is allowed to do this with their service, then it's likely that other content/service providers will try the same. While including TV service will be different with the laws and regulation that is set in place, these things need to be fought to set precedence.

I still don't understand why you americans are so afraid of net-neutrality. Any economic downside is temporal if at all. For all the anti-regulation guys out there, I think common-sense does apply here. Whenever a market can't self-regulate through competition, an external force is needed to affect the balance.

If I could restrict the use of the microcell to the phones I own, then I wouldn't mind them counting against my caps, but that is not possible, so it's not a whole lot different than opening up your home wi-fi to everyone. Yeah, I'm not paying for that, are you?

Not sure about yours but My AT&T microcell has a configuration page that allows just that. I can put in up to 15 phone numbers that are allowed to connect and up to 5 can be connected at a time.

When I connect to the microcell, the phone displays AT&T Microcell instead of just AT&T on my SIII's notification bar. This tells me that the phone is at least somewhat aware that it's not connected to a standard cell tower so I think data should stop being counted at that point. Especially since there are many customers out there like me who don't use AT&T for internet service. If I don't have the phone connect to my wifi, I'm getting counted by Comcast and AT&T for the same data. If you have broadband at home for your Microcell, it makes more sense to just use wifi for your phones data connection.

I just turned off my Siii's wifi to check the microcell data speed. The speedtest.net app showed 2.62 down and .14 up with a 217ms ping. Also, I get a different IP than my Comcast assigned one. When I turn the wifi back on speedtest.net shows a 111ms ping, 9.01 down and 6.01 up. Quite a bit faster. My desktop is getting a 71ms ping, 21.55 down and 3.47 up. Funny how the upload on the phone is faster. I realize those numbers are more relative than accurate. All three of those tests were done just now on the same Comcast pipe in my house.

We need to break up the ATT and Comcast's and separate the content from the carrier. It's so fucking simple it's a no brainer. Sorry, if any conservative/corporate apologist has a problem with that or say it can't be done obviously wasn't around when their patron saint Reagan broke up Ma Bell, and that was back in the days of no internet in the 80's.

Breaking up the companies into smaller bits doesn't help anybody. It doesn't matter if my local telco is a tiny company with a funny name, they're still a local monopoly, and have carte blanche to do anything they want.

The free-market solution is to have multiple telcos in the same geographic area, competing with each other. But this generally isn't economical at all, since telcos are a natural monopoly. Cable Cos got in there only because they were built-out long ago, when telcos couldn't provide TV service over their lines, but technology has completely changed that.

The socialist solution is to have a municipality-run telco, which just lays down fiber, and lets any and all service providers tap into their fiber lines to your home, for a low and non-discriminatory price, so your telco and cableco are just another service provider, and anybody can compete against them without needing huge investment.

The technological solution is to just wait for wireless technology to catch up, so that ad-hoc peer-to-peer wifi mesh networks provide fast internet service to everyone. But even before that, as the price on cellular technology decreases, cellcos may be able to improve their pricing to the point that they can provide speeds faster than your wired ISPs, with an inexpensive picocell in the middle of your neighborhood, without the need to run wires to every house like the telco and cableco.

Feel free to select the utopian or dystopian future you advocate, from the above options.

I choose the "socialist" option, barring the "sharing" part that you think needs to be there. Because it works just fine in Chattanooga, ask ANYONE there. And the municipal ISP doesn't share it with anyone but the paying customer. Sort of like water and sewage. I don't ever, ever hear anyone complain about their ISP. Oh, except Comcast who sued to stop them. Your thinking inside of your own self built box, there are lots of ways around the standard models. Chatt seems to do just fine with their "socialist" ISP.

Has anyone actually been capped? I mean I scream past my "cap" every month by hundreds of gigs and have yet to actually even see a response from at&t... when I do I will change providers...

Just last week I was talking to a telco techie type who was installing a DSL-TV service for a neighbour. While we chatted a bit about whether that would be a good option for me (I use a 3rd-party DSL Internet provider) and the various bad behaviour characteristic of the large telcos (one of the reasons I prefer an independant even though it's (very slightly) more expensive).

When the topic of usage caps and bandwidth throttling came up, he specifically mentioned that the telco doesn't bother enforcing caps against customers who are getting the DSL television package from them.

Here is the big problem with this. MicroCell customers -are- subject to usage caps on their wireless plans, despite the fact they use their own broadband connection for connectivity. Exempting usage caps for AT&T broadband customers using the MicroCell means AT&T is unfairly giving preferential treatment to their own traffic while counting everything else against their 150/250GB cap.

If you happen to be a cable customer with a usage cap, you are effectively given a double whammy - MicroCell traffic eats your wired and wireless usage allowance.

Net Neutrality means all traffic is treated equally without favor or penalty. AT&T is favoring their own traffic. It is clear they seek an advantage from it, but where does it stop? When providers start acting like toll booth collectors for broadband traffic, it starts us down the road to monetize broadband usage and help influence customer behavior.

My parents have an AT&T Microcell. They don't have AT&T for an ISP. My understanding is that their iPhone data use doesn't count against their phone's data cap because the iPhone isn't using cellular data at home on their WiFi network.

Or perhaps I misunderstood, and whenever you register the phone to the MicroCell for voice it also pairs it for data?

*************Back on topic, I understand the concern but am not [yet] totally convinced any ISP should have to give up a competitive benefit for their customers. If I buy *everything* from one company you can be damn sure I expect a bundle discount in some form.

Two ways to resolve the named conflict: 1) Force the ISP to ding their customers' data usage as if they weren't customers, or 2) Keep it as-is for their own customers and also exempt competitors' MicroCell's usage --- somehow.

Bottom line: as mom always said, don't complain unless you also have a good suggestion for a solution, so what's Public Knowledge's or Stopthecap's?

"It might make more sense for AT&T to take the opposite approach: count microcell traffic normally on the broadband side but don't count microcell traffic against any data cap that may exist on the user's cell phone. This would likely address PK's network neutrality concerns, since all microcells would enjoy equal treatment. And some customers have expressed outrage that microcell data counts against a customer's wireless cap given that the data is flowing through the customer's own wireless connection rather than AT&T's cell towers."

Leave it to AT&T to f-up where to apply the cap. Someone needs to tell them the money compass doesn't always point correctly.

Be upset instead that it's a crooked deal no matter which way the hairs are split. That you PAY THEM FOR THE MICROCELL is just the icing on the cake. No idea if AT&T still expects to assess a monthly charge for the honor of shoring up their spotty coverage for your contracted access as well... they did when it was first introduced and I just plain never bothered to look at it again.

Oh, to have enough extra money lying around to purchase enough stock to be seen as an entity of value in my service provider's (on both AT&T wireless/Uverse) eyes!

Incidentally, in said hypothetical situation which imperative do you think would win out? The desire to please me beyond all reason (and to the detriment of their actual business of delivering a service in exchange for money) as a stockholder, or the abject hatred of me as a timely-bill-paying customer who has the audacity to attempt use of the service I'm privileged to pay them for?

"It might make more sense for AT&T to take the opposite approach: count microcell traffic normally on the broadband side but don't count microcell traffic against any data cap that may exist on the user's cell phone. This would likely address PK's network neutrality concerns, since all microcells would enjoy equal treatment. And some customers have expressed outrage that microcell data counts against a customer's wireless cap given that the data is flowing through the customer's own wireless connection rather than AT&T's cell towers."

Leave it to AT&T to f-up where to apply the cap. Someone needs to tell them the money compass doesn't always point correctly.

AT&T doesn't want "capless" cell phone since they can charge more for people going over that cap. They're rather discount you on the broadband end since that cap is $~50 for 100s of gigs vs $30 for every 2gigs. They profit more if you go over 2 while going over the broadband is a silly notice.

What if we started a network neutrality super PAC that lobbied exclusively for forcing all government franchised ISPs to treat all data equally?

In the mean time, I've voted with my pocket book and ditched AT&T for cell service and have been happily using my new Republic Wireless phone. As long as Comcast doesn't start slowing down competing VoIP solutions I'll be a happy duck.

The socialist solution is to have a municipality-run telco, which just lays down fiber, and lets any and all service providers tap into their fiber lines to your home, for a low and non-discriminatory price, so your telco and cableco are just another service provider, and anybody can compete against them without needing huge investment.

Feel free to select the utopian or dystopian future you advocate, from the above options.

I choose the "socialist" option, barring the "sharing" part that you think needs to be there. Because it works just fine in Chattanooga, ask ANYONE there. And the municipal ISP doesn't share it with anyone but the paying customer. Sort of like water and sewage. I don't ever, ever hear anyone complain about their ISP. Oh, except Comcast who sued to stop them. Your thinking inside of your own self built box, there are lots of ways around the standard models. Chatt seems to do just fine with their "socialist" ISP.

What he was advocating was a common infrustructure, not a municapal competitor to other ISPs. The best analogy that I could see would be here in Texas with our power companies. We have one company that manages the powerlines, etc (Oncor). You can buy service from whichever power provider you want (i.e. Reliant) and you never get a bill from Oncor, it comes from your power provider. They pay oncor. If your billing is coming through Chattanooga municipal ISP, they are doing what AT&T, Comcast, etc does: controlling the horizontal and the vertical.

I think the best way is indeed a common "infrastructure" carrier that charges the ISPs for use. You, as the customer never get a bill from the common carrier.

I am quite surprised at the comments. Canadian here, terrible ISP with a pathetic data cap of 50GB per month (even had to spring for an upgrade to get that!) Bell, my ISP, does not allow me to use their Netflix like service without it counting towards my cap. Are you kidding me? I pay an arm and a leg for pathetic internet access, then I pay (well, actually I don't because it clearly makes no sense to do so) for your awful video streaming service, then I would likely pay even more because HD video would blow through my data allowance faster than Charlie Sheen and a line of coke on a stripper's stomach.

Bell also owns a television station with a decent number of shows available to watch online. At least this content has no explicit cost (supported by advertising) but again watching it is not reasonable (at least in HD although I am not sure this is even possible) because it counts toward my data cap.